HPX250: GH3 + HPX250 or GH3 + AC160a

Michael Johnstone

Michael Johnstone

Member
I hope this a good place to post this -

I’m getting ready to upgrade my gear from SD. I’ve been shooting depo videos for years and have been quite satisfied with a Sony PD-150 and a Panny DVX100b for that. But I’m sick of lawyers; it’s time now for art and beauty. So I’ve decided to get a GH3 & several nice lenses for the things it can do best and a Panny camcorder for the things camcorders still do best. I’ve narrowed it down to either an HPX250 or an AC160a. Since I will inevitably use it together w/the GH3 on certain projects - I guess my question is: Given the various codex/features/limitations of those 2 camcorders, which one will cut together with GH3 footage best. For instance if I want to shoot let’s say 2 camera coverage of sports, concert or event video at the most desirable 1080-60p on the GH3 but can only shoot 1080-30p or 720-60p on the HPX250 is there a way to uprez those unmatching but higher bit codex to cut it into the 1080-60p timeline? Or should I forget about the other advantages of the 250 like 10 bit, superior codec etc and just get an AC160a for the sake of frame rate compatibility to the GH3 even tho the 160a is only AVCHD? Or should I get the 250 and simply shoot 24p or 30p on both and just live with it – saving the superior features either camera (GH3 & HPX250) can do that the other cannot for projects calling for one or the other camera by itself? Are there other considerations I’m overlooking? I’ll be editing with FCPX on a late model Mac BTW.

Thanx for any insight into this question….
 
Hallo Michael! I have a Panny 301 and a GH2 and i have to say that colors match really well. Some tweaks in post,but they really looks close to my eyes. Both are older than 250 and GH3,but i think that the 250 is the right choice,for the codec in first place. I have used a 250 and is really similar to my 301,but i have never used a 160,a great camera too.
So my opinion is : 250 with GH3.
Sorry for my bad english and bests from Italy!
Roberto
 
I'd stay away from 720-60p uprez to 1080p timeline. It's a bit soft. Watch Discovery Network. Back in 2006-2007 they aired Atlas series. Once a while I catch the reruns. Predominately it was shot at 720p back then.
I also edit on FCP X.0.8 and have mixed legacy 720-60p clips fr. HVX200, HPX2000 and they are indeed soft in a 1080p timeline.
If your finish edits are destined for YouTube or other online sites, you can get away w/ cheaper cameras. But for network 1080i broadcasting or Blu-Ray, can't get away from the impairments found on cheaper camcorders.
Spend a bit more on the HPX-250 and pretty much all possible scenarios are covered (true SMPTE TC i/o, zoom range similar to 22x 2/3" ENG lens, AVC-I codec, Micro P2 compatibility).

HPX-250 is a story itself. Just because it has AVC-I 100 does't mean it's the same quality as P's higher end cam model. The codec helps,
but unfortunately the stock KG lens will disappoint you. You simply have to find workarounds and compromises.
 
lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com said:
I'd stay away from 720-60p uprez to 1080p timeline. It's a bit soft. Watch Discovery Network. Back in 2006-2007 they aired Atlas series. Once a while I catch the reruns. Predominately it was shot at 720p back then.
I also edit on FCP X.0.8 and have mixed legacy 720-60p clips fr. HVX200, HPX2000 and they are indeed soft in a 1080p timeline.
If your finish edits are destined for YouTube or other online sites, you can get away w/ cheaper cameras. But for network 1080i broadcasting or Blu-Ray, can't get away from the impairments found on cheaper camcorders.
Spend a bit more on the HPX-250 and pretty much all possible scenarios are covered (true SMPTE TC i/o, zoom range similar to 22x 2/3" ENG lens, AVC-I codec, Micro P2 compatibility).

HPX-250 is a story itself. Just because it has AVC-I 100 does't mean it's the same quality as P's higher end cam model. The codec helps,
but unfortunately the stock KG lens will disappoint you. You simply have to find workarounds and compromises.
Click to expand...

Not to high jack this post but.......Lonewolf, how do you compare the Sony pmw200 to the hpx250?
 
Last edited:
I'll be shooting a mixed bag of high end live events, music videos, cable TV docs that range from Huell Howser to Anthony Bourdain level, a high end wedding or two if I feel like it, cruise ship/travel stuff, behind the scenes music docs, car shows, airshows, etc - deliverable anywhere from You Tube to DVD/Blue Ray to broadcast. I just dont wanna be one taco short of a combination plate when it comes to bits and mbps - especially when cutting the two cameras together w/least common denominator codex and not worry about meeting mimimum broadcast spex for the next couple years.
 
male_man said:
Not to high jack this post but.......Lonewolf, how do you compare the Sony pmw200 to the hpx250?
Click to expand...

I just got the PMW200 several weeks ago. So far I'm just not too thrilled with it - mostly the picture quality is average when I shot a live event inside a gym with fluorescent lighting. I used the default picture profile. There's just no richness to the video that I'm used to older 2/3" Sony DV cam. I'm not sure if Sony skims on the downconversion circuit to save cost. But it was not even close to their older 2/3". It was for a DirectTV & Dish international live broadcast feed, so I had to shoot it with the DVCAM mode. [That's right! 480i in 2013. Not even 1080i broadcast. The satellite uplink costs for 1080i is extremely expensive for most producers to handle. 480i is much more affordable.] I have yet to switch over to the full HD 422 MPEG mode and record all to SxS card. I will have to experiment more with the sharpness and detail settings on that camera. Prior to this my favorite is the legacy DSR-450 2/3". It's able to resolve detail much better than any current Sony 1/2" (EX1, EX3, PMW200) in SD 480i modes. These legacy 2/3" DVCAMs (DSR570, 450) subjectively has better DSP and optics but at the expensive of a larger form factor. It looks richer. Skintones rendition is much better and more pleasant to look at.

I will give Sony PMW200 benefit of the doubt in 1080 HD mode as I have more opportunities to shoot w/ it in the near future. For the most part, I still shoot a lot more w/ the HPX-250/HPX3100 combo and find it more comfortable to do color grade w/ AVC-I 100 codec. I will have to do more research on MPEG 422 HD codec to see how well it can handle the abuse in post. For starter, the HPX-250's flip out LCD is located at the ideal spot vs PMW200's LCD which is located on the top of the handle and near the hot shoe mount. If you happen to do a mini shoulder handheld, the PMW200's LCD, when flipped down is just too close to the eyes. It actually blocks you from the real world front view. I'm annoyed by this. W/ the HPX-250, you can comfortably use both the eyecup VF and glance down to the LCD easily and because the HPX250's LCD is situated a bit to the center-bottom of the cam, it doesn't block your front view. HPX250 is a bit fatter, and slightly has a plastic feel at the exterior edges where PMW200 is a bit longer and has a more industrial metal feeling to the entire body and outer grip. Media wise, I find Sony SxS 64 Gb is way too expensive vs Panasonic's P2 series F. $750- $1,500 for (depending on the grade of 64 Gb SxS card) is just a bit too much these days. Micro P2 is definitely very affordable. They both have similar features. Main reason I got the PMW200 is to match it with the EX3 if a particular shoot needs to be all Sony. If all Panasonic, will deploy HPX-250s as B & C cams to save costs.
 
Last edited:
The 22x zoom range available on the HPX-250 will be very useful. Cheaper Micro P2 cards are working on the HPX-250. Overall I think the HPX-250 will fit your wide range of shooting scenarios over the 160. 1080-60p is a nice option but not necessary for majority of the shoot. With 30p only camera, you can workaround it by using Twixtor and shoot it at 1080/59.94. FCP X also has a nice time remapping. I did quite a few slow mo sequences from a 1080/30p originated footage. Granted is not as smooth as 60p, but quite acceptable w/ optical flow software assist. Come to think of it, I rarely use slo-mo except for intro motion graphics or special emphasis on a particular scene.

Michael Johnstone said:
I'll be shooting a mixed bag of high end live events, music videos, cable TV docs that range from Huell Howser to Anthony Bourdain level, a high end wedding or two if I feel like it, cruise ship/travel stuff, behind the scenes music docs, car shows, airshows, etc - deliverable anywhere from You Tube to DVD/Blue Ray to broadcast. I just dont wanna be one taco short of a combination plate when it comes to bits and mbps - especially when cutting the two cameras together w/least common denominator codex and not worry about meeting mimimum broadcast spex for the next couple years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm not too concerned about getting slo-mo out of the 250 because if I need under or over cranking trix, a GH3 can do whatever the 250 cannot. But if I simply want to somehow conjure up 1080-60p out of a 250 and I understand this correctly - I can shoot 1080/29.97 over 59.94i w/a 2:2 puldown and de-interlace the footage in FCPX or somehow in Twixtor (which I'm not that familiar with) and derive 1080-60p out of the 250? If so does it look good or kinda hinky and faked up? And then is it a rendering nightmare in a long form project when trying to match it with other actual 1080-60p material like from a GH3 on an FCPX 1080-60p timeline? Or am I still missing the point here?
 
Yes. Confirming 1080/59.94i to 1080/60p is going to be disappointing fr. workflow efficiency and quality. The de-interlacing of 59.94i clip will take a very, very long time. I generally have to do that ahead of time in After FX and not FCP X. It's a bit soft but not soft as a 720-1080p uprez'd clip. Motion smoothness is quite acceptable but it's simply not pristine as shooting it natively at 1080/60p. Sensor's grain and small artifacts are magnified. This is where AVC-I Class 200 will be a good codec to work with. It's OK if you only do a small % of clips, but not the entire program.

1080/60p is not your typical final delivery standard for broadcast. Not all Blu-Ray players will support 1080/60p. You'll have to get it back down to the standard 1080i or have them do the downconversion and risk artifacts. This is a double whammy for the HPX-250's 1080/59.94 footage as you have to de-interlace it to a 1080/60p sequence and have to go back down to regular 29.97. I rather work everything in 1080/29.97 and use optical flow to get smoother slo mo. Based from previous experience w/ 720/60p clips, it's better overall to take a 60p clip and drop it to a 30p timeline.

The added expenses for a true 1080/60p workflow are just too much for most people. You have to upgrade your capture to dual-link HD-SDI all sort of RAID hdd expenses to get it to at least 293 Mb/s for Pro Res 4:2:2 to handle true 1080/60p media.
And still there's no wide support for 1080/60p.
 
Last edited:
OK I get all that and I suspected as much. Thanx. It's just that with all this 4K talk that looks like its a few years away from a must have format (for me) and since I'm getting ready to spend money on a couple cameras and a new computer system which I will need to remain relevant for the next 3 years,I thought I'd draw the line at 1080-60p.The GH3 will do that w/a pretty solid codec and the AC160a will do it too albeit in 8-bit, under 50 mbps AVCHD. I just thought the HPX250 was an all round better camera w/a better codec/bit depth when considered by itself and I really like how it can download straight to a hard drive w/out a computer. There's a lot to like about the 250 but then again maybe for my purposes an AC160a is a better match for a GH3 - cheaper media and raid issues too. Either that or quit obsessing about 1080-60p in this you tube world,grab a 250,20 terabytes of raid,some cheap P2s and shoot 24p or 30p. That way also I'm covered for broadcast spex and certain "P2 only" freelance gigs - and if 60p does come up, I can always do it with the GH3. Hmmmmmmmmm......(counts money - drums fingers on table....)
 
Michael Johnstone said:
OK I get all that and I suspected as much. Thanx. It's just that with all this 4K talk that looks like its a few years away from a must have format (for me) and since I'm getting ready to spend money on a couple cameras and a new computer system which I will need to remain relevant for the next 3 years,I thought I'd draw the line at 1080-60p.The GH3 will do that w/a pretty solid codec and the AC160a will do it too albeit in 8-bit, under 50 mbps AVCHD. I just thought the HPX250 was an all round better camera w/a better codec/bit depth when considered by itself and I really like how it can download straight to a hard drive w/out a computer. There's a lot to like about the 250 but then again maybe for my purposes an AC160a is a better match for a GH3 - cheaper media and raid issues too. Either that or quit obsessing about 1080-60p in this you tube world,grab a 250,20 terabytes of raid,some cheap P2s and shoot 24p or 30p. That way also I'm covered for broadcast spex and certain "P2 only" freelance gigs - and if 60p does come up, I can always do it with the GH3. Hmmmmmmmmm......(counts money - drums fingers on table....)
Click to expand...

One of the many drawbacks with 4K production is the very high cost of the lens. Sure you can get cheaper ones from Red or 3rd party mfgs, but it won't faithfully reproduce 4K in its pixel by pixel glory. Likely a quality PL-mount lens will cost 3-4x more than the camera body. Found out the hard way recently that even a speck of dust on a polarizer or clear filter will affect the image. It needs near perfection front glass element when shooting wider shot on a Sony F5. I mean it comes to a point where you pretty much have to constantly watch for dust and put to a very bright light to verify is ridiculous for non-staged shots.
 
Last edited:
male_man said:
Not to high jack this post but.......Lonewolf, how do you compare the Sony pmw200 to the hpx250?
Click to expand...
The key advantages to the PMW200 are:

1/2" chips versus 1/3"

Full manual lens - the HPX250 "manual" mode is via servos, so no end stop etc on focus ring.

As far as "look" goes, it depends how you set it up. Don't judge by the out of the box settings.
Michael Johnstone said:
I just dont wanna be one taco short of a combination plate when it comes to bits and mbps -..........w/least common denominator codex and not worry about meeting mimimum broadcast spex for the next couple years.
Click to expand...
Both the HPX250 and PMW200 have codecs which are considered fully acceptable for broadcast - but AVC-HD isn't. If minimum broadcast spec is a concern to you, stay away from the AC160.
[email said:
lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com[/email]]Media wise, I find Sony SxS 64 Gb is way too expensive vs Panasonic's P2 series F.
Click to expand...
I don't agree - I've just checked CVP pricing for the UK, and SxS cards are just over £400, P2 (F) are £430 - so not a great deal of difference.

*BUT* for full broadcast spec codec, it's 50Mbs for the PMW200 - 100Mbs for the HPX250, so you need twice as many P2 cards for a given run time as SxS. That swings the economics very strongly in favour of the PMW200.

Finally, it may be worth considering the PMW300 if you have an eye on the future. Next year, XAVC and the 60p modes become available as an upgrade. It also has far better ergonomics than either the PMW200 or the HPX250 - and has the all important 1/2" chips and true manual lens.
 
harddrive said:
The key advantages to the PMW200 are:

*BUT* for full broadcast spec codec, it's 50Mbs for the PMW200 - 100Mbs for the HPX250, so you need twice as many P2 cards for a given run time as SxS. That swings the economics very strongly in favour of the PMW200.

Finally, it may be worth considering the PMW300 if you have an eye on the future. Next year, XAVC and the 60p modes become available as an upgrade. It also has far better ergonomics than either the PMW200 or the HPX250 - and has the all important 1/2" chips and true manual lens.
Click to expand...

I'm new to the XDCAM MPEG 422 codec. Panasonic has a video on their AVC-Intra 100 on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlXq8a4piNw.
They compared to the older HDCAM codec but not the MPEG 422.

Sony's answer to AVC-I 100: http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/...ns/MPEG-2_Long_GoP_vs_AVC_Comp-Strategies.pdf. It appears Sony's strategy is smaller and more efficient file size. This is their white paper. It has to be somewhat biased. Is there any real world, unbiased comparison on the two popular MPEG 422 & AVC-I 100 codecs?
 
lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com said:
It has to be somewhat biased. Is there any real world, unbiased comparison on the two popular MPEG 422 & AVC-I 100 codecs?
Click to expand...
Yes, there was a very scientific test done a while ago by the European Broadcasting Union, and it was that that led to the whole idea of the "broadcast approved" concept.

Briefly, they concluded that both Xdcam 422 and AVC-Intra 100 were acceptable for "general broadcast HD acquisition". It's to be expected that one may perform better under some circumstances and vice versa, but for all practical purposes, don't worry about it - they both have "fully approved" status and I'm not aware of any reliable independent work which gives one an overall advantage over the other.

{EDIT - I've now got a direct link to the EBU paper: http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_2008-Q3_HD-Prod-Codecs.pdf

Note the complexity put in to the trials, and in particular the way shifts were put in to avoid simply decompressing/recompressing identical frames. In the case of XDCAM, they took care that in subsequent recompressions they didn't use the same frames for the I-frames each time.

If the whole article is daunting :) maybe this from the conclusions section sums it up:}

.......... All tested codecs have shown quasitransparent quality up to at least 4 to 5 multi-generations, but have also shown few impairments such as noise or loss of resolution with critical images at the 7th generation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Michael Johnstone said:
I hope this a good place to post this -

I’m getting ready to upgrade my gear from SD. I’ve been shooting depo videos for years and have been quite satisfied with a Sony PD-150 and a Panny DVX100b for that. But I’m sick of lawyers; it’s time now for art and beauty. So I’ve decided to get a GH3 & several nice lenses for the things it can do best and a Panny camcorder for the things camcorders still do best. I’ve narrowed it down to either an HPX250 or an AC160a. Since I will inevitably use it together w/the GH3 on certain projects - I guess my question is: Given the various codex/features/limitations of those 2 camcorders, which one will cut together with GH3 footage best. For instance if I want to shoot let’s say 2 camera coverage of sports, concert or event video at the most desirable 1080-60p on the GH3 but can only shoot 1080-30p or 720-60p on the HPX250 is there a way to uprez those unmatching but higher bit codex to cut it into the 1080-60p timeline? Or should I forget about the other advantages of the 250 like 10 bit, superior codec etc and just get an AC160a for the sake of frame rate compatibility to the GH3 even tho the 160a is only AVCHD? Or should I get the 250 and simply shoot 24p or 30p on both and just live with it – saving the superior features either camera (GH3 & HPX250) can do that the other cannot for projects calling for one or the other camera by itself? Are there other considerations I’m overlooking? I’ll be editing with FCPX on a late model Mac BTW.

Thanx for any insight into this question….
Click to expand...

I used a Sony DSR-250 up till last year (SD), then started looking for a good 5-7 year camera. After much looking for what would fit my needs, I went with the 250. I much of the same type of work as you. Live stage musical events, and everything else in-between. I look at the 130/160 but in the end the 250 for my use would last better and do far more. I also was worried about no 1080 60p, but after using the camera I have found no real need except for my own wanting too. I shoot almost all 1080 24p for live events because of low lighting and it works great, sharp clean images. This camera will meet all broadcast standards out of the box. If 1080 60p is required then get the 160, if not I would lean you towards the 250.
 
Thanx guys. I came to most of the same conclusions myself and I suppose I was just looking for some back up and wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something. I ended up finding a great deal on a clean low hour HPX 250 about 10 miles from my house and made a new friend in the process. I'm starting to feel the same way about 1080-60p and when I really need it I can get it from my GH3 which I also just recently acquired. It will do 1080-60p at 50 Mbps and has a more than decent selection of codecs. These two cameras are phenomenal at what they do and I can't wait to dig deep into them. I think I really hit the jackpot and have made the kind of step up from SD I had in mind.
 
Get Barry's book for the 250 if you can. Helps allot in understanding the camera and features. I keep it in the bag at all times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top